Is it moral to check others' enthusiasm?

Great Debates
1

Even if it is an enthusiasm for a good cause?

This, of course, is in response to the innumerable threads and posts about Obama/Hillary. Several times now, various posters have questioned why their enthusiasm for Obama seems distasteful to a few other posters (myself included). How best to explain this disdain?

I am a skeptical person by nature. To be brutally honest, I still regard Obama with all the guarded suspicion that I focused on George W. Bush during his elections. But I’ll admit, my knee-jerk response to the blazing enthusiasm around Obama is to become even more wary of his path to glory.

Why?

Perhaps it is because of experience. Perhaps I remember how many people thought other certain politicians were special, nice, bringing about change, etc. Or maybe I’m just naturally suspicious of good intentions.

All of those things, perhaps, but I think there’s one thing in particular that HAS, for some reason, turned me off to the Obama campaign. What is it?

The enthusiasm of his supporters.

Now, on the face of it, I admit that this seems wrongheaded. But I think there are real moral reasons why I immediately react to his staunch supporters in this way. One reason is that I’m not in the USA, so I receive all my information about the campaigns and the candidates through the internet. Obama’s supporters on the internet may be a tad bit higher octane than the general population. In fact, I’m willing to bet it. Still, that colors my perception.

Second, and most importantly, it is my strong belief that too much enthusiasm and loyalty to any politician is a morally dangerous road. Sometimes, I feel that we get too caught up in the competition to recognize the greased paths we make. Enthusiasm and loyalty and faith are lubricants for small things like laws you didn’t really want passed and even big things like corruption. You don’t think your Golden Boy could fall? I’m sorry, but I don’t have your kind of faith in a person I’ve never met, laughed with, or been a friend to.

Despite not really having a dog in the fight, I consistently find myself arguing on the side of the Clintonites. Why? Not because I really support Hillary, but because I feel an instinctual urge to combat the Obama supporter’s enthusiasm. I think that there are more than a few posters here who also do this.

My question, ultimately, is whether this is a moral stance? Is it the right thing to do? Is it moral to try to essentially “rise above” the argument to arbitrate? Is that an arrogant assumption to operate under?

This is getting long, so let’s see if we can garner any discussion first. Some might say the argument ought to die with the choosing of the nominee, but I think it’s even more important now that Obama is on the path to the presidency.

What say you, Dopers?

2

I think you’re just playing the role of the Devil’s advocate. A lot of people will be more likely to argue against some opinion, the more popular that opinion becomes. There’s nothing wrong with it really, and in fact it can be useful for people to hear a dissenting voice, who might have otherwise never questioned their ideas.

That doesn’t mean you’re right, though. You already acknowledge that there’s no logical reason to judge Obama by his supporters, and that the supporters you’re exposed to are likely to be more aggressive than his typical supporters. You don’t really have an intellectual leg to stand on in your argument against Obama, unless you honestly disagree with his positions, his campaign tactics, or doubt his sincerity.

I guess being wary of having such a popular leader is a legitimate concern, too. In that case, you should probably argue for being more vigilant against corruption, and to be more critical in how we make our decisions. It’s a little annoying that you started the discussion in this tone, because no matter what anyone says, you’re “right”. You haven’t actually made an attack on my candidate that I can respond to. You’ve just taken what’s undeniably true, that a lot of us are enthusiastic for him, and made an arbitrary judgment that it’s wrong to be. There are no points to counter. The premises are all undebatable, and there’s no real conclusion.

3

Essentially, I was trying to argue that having a popular leader is by necessity is a legitimate concern. However, I’m not asking you to attack the premises. I’m asking you to address whether or not these concerns are sufficient to play “Devil’s Advocate” reasonably. In other words, are we just being paranoid?

I also didn’t realize I’d focused so much on the Obama/Clinton campaign when I’d originally intended for it to be a much broader topic. Oh well, what’s done is done. Keeping to the spirit of what’s already begun, I’m reaching for an argument as to whether it’s reasonable or even moral to be unilaterally against enthusiasm past a certain level.

I guess I assumed that an argument could be made that it’s essentially unreasonable and none-of-my-business. Evidence may pan out that Obama, for instance, is very trustworthy. But, like I said, I didn’t mean to or want to “attack” Obama. I’m addressing, specifically, the enthusiasm of supporters that is (in my mind) often exemplified by Obama supporters.

For an example not politically related: Is it reasonable to be suspicious of enthusiasm over a certain household product that has become wildly popular? Even without any clear evidence that the product is harmful?

And here, by reasonable, I don’t mean is it reasonable to do this because of the evidence presented to be suspicious of it (which is nonexistant), but rather is it reasonable in the sense that it’s an overall rational approach to any extreme display of enthusiasm/loyalty.

I mean, I get the same way over my girlfriend’s prized shampoo!

My mother, for instance, would argue that enthusiasm is still well-guarded by reason. I tend to disagree. I’d be surprised if enthusiasm didn’t bend to bias in most cases, but maybe I’m wrong. I’ve never actually done such a study.

4

I’m not sure that it is necessarily a moral question.

I’ve never once been “enthusiastic” about a politician. Even the brightest eyed, best-spoken, most intelligent of men who runs for office remains a creature of extreme ambition. My personal experience with humans is such that anytime extreme ambition is involved, I know that we’re talking about people who will essentially do anything to win.

“Do anything” means different things for different people. An Obama supporter will probably be along shortly to counter, by saying, “but Obama is the only candidate who doesn’t accept money from xxx! So obviously he wouldn’t do anything to win! That’s why he’s so great!” I look at it in a different way. I start from the assumption that Obama really wants to be President. I think he’s carefully calculated that any short-term strategic problems that may arise from refusing money from lobbying groups will ultimately be outweighed by long term and deeply ingrained support from the citizens at large. Simply, Obama has that stance because he’s thought it through and realized that it is more beneficial to him than it isn’t. I think if Obama felt that accepting money from lobbyists would increase his chances of winning the Presidency, he’d accept that money, period. His decision to not do so gives him a powerful position in the public, and lets him talk it up in ads and speeches.

So, since I view all politicians essentially as creatures of pure ambition, I never really trust any of them–even the ones I most definitely want to win. I don’t think they are bad people, most of them. They are just people playing a very high-stakes game that requires almost blinding ambition to win at.

I think it’s also worthwhile to note that I’m just not a very enthusiastic person in general, so that may have something to do with it. I have friends who get so enthusiastic about movies that are coming out starring one of their favorite actors, or directed by one of their favorite directors, that they literally immerse themselves in the pre-movie hype. They plan to see the movie on a specific date weeks or months in advance. They watch every trailer over and over again in baited anticipation. Even movies I’m very, very interested in seeing, I just never “get that way” over them. I know it’ll hit theaters eventually, I’ll see it, and enjoy it–or not, either way, I don’t feel the need to get emotionally excited about it.

I think some people are like this and some people aren’t, and that’s also part of the reason you see the enthusiasm you do–I think some people are just prone to that.

5

Me either. Skeptical voices are almost always a useful reality check.

As a practical matter, I’d question whether it makes sense to be skeptical of Obama based on the enthusiasm of his supporters. He is who he is, regardless of whether his fans think he walks on water and raises the dead.

The number and enthusiasm of his followers raise the importance of making sure that he really is what he appears to be, but there seems to be little reason for skepticism there.

There needs to be a lot of skepticism about whether he can do the things he’d like to accomplish. It’s possible that the Dems might emerge from this election with a filibuster-proof 60+ Senate majority, but that isn’t the way to be. And if the GOP come out of this election with 41 or more Senators, then they can block a great deal of legislation - possibly Obama’s entire legislative agenda.

If I could have asked the Dem contenders one question back in December or early January, that question would have been how they planned to deal with that political fact of life. I think Obama’s supporters should expect two years of sparse results, hopefully followed by Senate wins in 2010 that put them over the top.

6

What you’re describing cannot be considered skepticism, which is a harsh evaluation of facts and/or arguments. It seems to me that you’re describing a purely contrarian position – it’s not the underlying facts and/or arguments that bother you, it’s the fervor with which they’re expressed. Is that a moral position? Doubtful, at least not in most circumstances.

Rather, depending on the force of your reaction and chosen method of (counter)expression, in many/most circumstances it would just make you a wet blanket (or, less charitably, a dick).

7

What strikes me as morally questionable is putting everything a person says and does in the worst possible light, whether the person is a presidential candidate or someone you know in real life.

I really want to respect and believe in the next President of the U.S., whoever that turns out to be. I’d like to believe that Obama, Clinton, McCain, et al are all basically good people who would do a decent job—at least, if I can believe that without denying reality. If there’s something seriously wrong with a candidate (or a person I know personally), then yes, I’d like to know that. But I’m tired of how, every time one of them says or does anything, there’s always someone to put the worst possible interpretation on it or jump to the worst possible conclusion.

8

Heh: are you (C&B) a hipster? Do you turn up your nose at a band when it becomes popular or has rabid fans?

9

In this case you also have to add the utter demonization of the other side that has come up many times. If it was just enthusiasm for a cause that would be one thing, but this is a different animal.

10

That’s actually a good analogy, Thudlow. Outside of politics, I know quite a few people whose dislike of a popular TV series, music group, game, whatever, is directly proportional to that thing’s popularity, regardless of actual quality.

You mean like calling Obama supporters cultists?

I think some attacks on Clinton go over the top, but as far as I’ve seen, whenever you ask a Obama supporter why they’re demonizing Clinton, they point to her actions and behavior. When you ask a Clinton supporter why they’re demonizing Obama, they point to the enthusiasm of the supporters, or the people he used to know, anything but the actions of the man who’s actually running for President. I also see a lot of demonizing of Obama’s supporters. I don’t think I’ve seen much demonizing of Clinton supporters aside from DrDeth and ElvisL1ves, and that’s primarily because their debating tactics tend to be frustrating, not because they like Clinton.

11

The only demonization of Obama I’ve seen has come from the far right wing. I may have missed some, but obviously can’t comment on what I haven’t seen.

12

I agree with the OP. I’m a strong Democrat, but the way that Obama’s fans are treating him like the messiah invokes a lot of suspicion in me. It seems people are so blindly and rabidly in love with him, and think that he is perfect and can do no wrong, and everything he says is gospel. So what happens when he does make a mistake? Will these people hold him accountable?

This level of “enthusiasm” over a single politician does strike me as a bit cultish, and I don’t feel comfortable with that. It’s too much like what has happened in other countries in the course of history, were a leader becomes regarded as god-like and is practically worshipped. This can be dangerous territory.

And I just feel like a lot of people are just hopping on this bandwagon of “HOPE” and “CHANGE” that has been marketed to them by the campaign, like zombies. I don’t like zombie-like followers.

13

I am not a Clinton supporter. Why is it that anyone who isn’t a gung-ho Obama cheerleader is a Clinton supporter?

14

Don’t be disingenuous. If you’re a Republican who wanted to face Clinton in the general or simply a contrarian who’s been taking the Devil’s Advocate position against the Obama supporters, fine, but I’ve been following the political threads here fairly closely and I don’t recall you ever stating your position, only attacking Obama and supporting Clinton.

We can only go by what you’ve said here, and it’s not an unreasonable inference that you’re a Clinton supporter, especially when you’ve made the exact same arguments, almost word for word, as Elvis. Your gotcha game is weak.

15

Okay, I see the post about being a Gore supporter. My point still stands.

16

Only one of about half a dozen. But clearly, you know better than I. Yes, I am secretly Hillary herself. :stuck_out_tongue:

17

It is never moral to check others’ enthusiasm regarding:

  1. kittens;
  2. pie; and
  3. saying “Hi Opal”